pull down to refresh
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 9 May \ parent \ on: To talk or not to talk with normies about libertarianism ideasfromtheedge
I wouldn't make that generalization about libertarians.
In my experience the average libertarian on responda in a reasoned manner more often than the average member of most other political ideologies.
I've found that libertarians tend to be able to describe what they believe and why more effectively and consistently on average.
I think we should all strive to respond in a calm and reasoned manner like you say and there's certainly examples of people using the label libertarian failing to do that.
Returning to the theme about ways to avoid unecessrily acrimonious arguing:
Slowing down the discussion and pauzing to ponder and consider can also be a good strategy fo fruitful conversation and debate.
E.g. when someone makes a point that seems off we could say pauze, and say:
"Interesting, that doesn't seem quite right to me but I'm not sure why. Let me think about it. ... Ah I think the reason for my reluctance to go along with that description has to do with ..."
Instead of reflexively responding "No" or "That's incorrect" without offering actual argument or evidence.
I see it often these days that people confuse statements like
"That's misinformation",
"That's a conspiracy theory",
"That's been demonstrated to be incorrect"
with actual argument or evidence.
These phrases merely state conclusions or assertions without offering reasons to give them creedence apart from the authority or perceived credibility of the person uttering them.
People often take for granted their own understandings and beliefs about the world and fail to make them explicit in discussion.
They throw out conclusions of theirs without showing how they reached them, sometimes perhaps not even know how they reached them.
Completely agree except that my experience here on SNs has been that it is very very rare for the Libertarians on here to engage in calm reasoned debate and a respectful contest of ideas in response to alternative viewpoints , but rather almost exclusively they are-
'reflexively responding "No" or "That's incorrect" without offering actual argument or evidence.'
Often they resort to name calling and/or blatantly misrepresenting what has been said, instead of taking the opportunity to consider and respond in a thoughtful honest manner to demonstrate the strength of their Libertarian reasoning.
It has been disappointing, as I expected and hoped for more reasoned substance and less reactionary and irrational abuse.
reply